Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 16:32:59 +0900 From: Pyun YongHyeon <pyunyh@gmail.com> To: xer <xernet@hotmail.it> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: watchdog timeout Message-ID: <20090410073259.GK37714@michelle.cdnetworks.co.kr> In-Reply-To: <BAY126-DS636DEDE91BD300E310A8FA3800@phx.gbl> References: <20090407120032.633E410656D5@hub.freebsd.org> <BAY126-DS446FD5BE2D016BDCD821AA3820@phx.gbl> <20090410044340.GJ37714@michelle.cdnetworks.co.kr> <BAY126-DS636DEDE91BD300E310A8FA3800@phx.gbl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 09:01:15AM +0200, xer wrote: > Thank you Pyun > I found this another one: > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=129352 > > And it seems a lot different.. which one will bet to try? I think the patch in the PR is not right fix. Drivers should not rearm watchdog timeouts in Tx completion handler, otherwise it would hide root cause of timeouts. if_start handler should be the only place to arm the timer. Try attached patch in previous mail. > Regards > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Pyun YongHyeon" <pyunyh@gmail.com> > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 6:43 AM > To: "xer" <xernet@hotmail.it> > Cc: <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> > Subject: Re: watchdog timeout > > > > >I vaguely remember there were a couple of reports on xl(4) watchdog > >timeouts. I'm not sure this came from missing Tx interrupts but > >would you try attached patch? > >Note, it was generated against HEAD and you should experiment the > >attached patch on local box prior to applying to your production > >server. > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090410073259.GK37714>